but I just can't help it. The Targeting Rule is ******* stupid. Those of you who thought it was a "good" rule got to see how awful it really is. Those of you who were watching the Ala.-LSU game (and who isn't) don't know what I'm talking about. ND's AA D lineman Tuitt was ejected from the game with Pitt for no reason.The QB running and Tuitt both lowered their helmets for a hit and Tuitt was thrown out for targeting. Anyone who thought this was a good rule must have played without a helmet.
Those of us that are watching the Alabama/LSU game agree. There was an obvious late hate targeting by LSU halfway through the fourth quarter in which the guy wasn't ejected. The application of this rule is ridiculous.
I agree and it is worse than the excessive celebration rule, which interestingly is almost never called anymore.
Here's the LSU one. Ignore Gary Danielson's drunken ramblings. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/08FKNyfcTMw" frameborder="0"></iframe>
I hate how the rule is being applied, and if Tuitt was ejected, then the LSU kid should have been as well. HOWEVER, there is no need to lead a tackle with the crown of the helmet. In the case of the ND kid, he could have and should have made the tackle without lowering his head. In fact, he didn't even attempt to wrap the kid up. His arms never came up from his sides.
Here is one of the first horrible calls we saw this year. This was against A&M, a clean, shoulder-to-shoulder hit, in which the kid was ejected, and was UPHELD ON REVIEW. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/_bvLkL3-eFk" frameborder="0"></iframe>
And here is one where it was overturned because "he didn't lower his head". <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/TAR_JKq2C1I" frameborder="0"></iframe>
The problem with this freaking rule is that the penalty has absolutely no consistency to what is and isn't ejected due to targeting. Good, clean hits get penalized with an ejection whereas obvious spearing doesn't. Sometimes it's overturned because the offender didn't intend to hit the guy with the helmet, and others it's not because intent doesn't factor in. Then, on top of it, if the review shows that not only was there no targeting, but there wasn't even a personal foul, the offense still gets an automatic first down on a horrible call. The application of this rule is ********.
We are told this rule is to improve the safety of the game. If that were so, why add the rule in the first place? This next video occurred a couple years ago and he was ejected. The NCAA has caused focused enforcement on things before, without having to change rules. Why did this particular one require such a half-assed application of a new rule??? <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/m-DoltcPIqw" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Another horrible application of this rule, where the ejection stood after review. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ZDCGC7wKEvg" frameborder="0"></iframe>
I can see how a QB who has just thrown a pass is "defensless." I can see how a receiver who is extended or who has just caught the ball can be "defenseless." I'm sorry but a ball carrier in the open field is not "defenseless." The Pitt QB actually puts his helmet down. He could of course do a hook slide if he wanted to. I can't beleive that the morons who passed this rule meant it to apply to ball carriers in the open field.